Masi. The Member is seeking unanimous consent to move item 6 right after Members' statements.

---Unanimous consent granted

Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Marsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Michael Fatte in the gallery today. I spoke of Michael in the statement that I made today, working with the homeless people in Yellowknife, and I would also like to recognize YK Dene members, Jennifer Lafferty, Donald White, and the baby, Cameron Lafferty. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to recognize Jennifer Lafferty, her partner Donald White, and their son Cameron. Thank you for being with us today and your hard work in developing the petition that I will be tabling later today. Thank you.

Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two Pages here, Kyra Sanguez, who I have actually had the opportunity to coach this year, as well as Ava Erasmus, whose mother and father are really good friends, and grandparents I know really well. As well, I would like to recognize Debra Richards, who is my CA, who is also chaperoning our Pages from Simpson, and it's her birthday today, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Happy birthday. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Member for Nunakput.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize the translator from Nunakput, Ms. Annie Goose. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize and welcome a life-long friend of mine, Trevor Kasteel, to the House today. He recently won an award for community builder. It came from the NWT Disabilities Council. So, congratulations and welcome, and thank you for being here.

Masi. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to move to item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills, on the orders of the day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Unanimous consent granted

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Members. Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the Assembly that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and the Standing Committee on Social Development have reviewed Bill 6, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act, and wish to report that Bill 6 is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi, Member for Kam Lake. Bill 6 is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 75(5) to have Bill 6, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation, moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Unanimous consent granted

Bill 6 is moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today. Masi. Reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 4, reports of standing and special committees. Member for Nahendeh.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are here today for the Standing Committee on Government Operations and the Standing Committee on Social Development report on the review of Bill 6, Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act.

Introduction

In April 2017, the federal government introduced two bills to legalize cannabis in Canada. Bill C-45 deals with federal licensing and oversight of the cannabis supply chain, including all production and distribution, and sets regulatory standards to protect public health and safety. Bill C-46 sets out offences and procedures relating to impaired driving.

To avoid having this default federal framework imposed on the Northwest Territories when the Government of Canada legalizes cannabis across the country, it is necessary for the Government of the Northwest Territories (GNWT) to adopt its own framework. To create these rules, which pick up where federal legislation leaves off, the GNWT introduced Bill 6, the Cannabis Legalization and Regulation Implementation Act. Bill 6 proposed two new laws for cannabis control: the Cannabis Products Act; and the Cannabis Smoking Control Act. To address drug-impaired driving, it also proposed amendments to current provisions of the territorial Motor Vehicles Act. This omnibus bill is the proposed legislation under review here.

Our Review of Bill 6

On March 1, 2018, Bill 6 received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories and was referred to the standing committee for review. The Standing Committee on Government Operations reviews activities of the Department of Finance, which will administer the Cannabis Products Act once it becomes law. Similarly, the Standing Committee on Social Development reviews activities of the Department of Health and Social Services, which will administer the Cannabis Smoking Control Act once it becomes law. These committees also share membership with the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, which reviews activities of the Department of Infrastructure, which in turn administers the Motor Vehicles Act. For this reason, the standing committees, operating as the "joint committee," with no pun intended, have worked together to review the bill.

Between April 23 and May 4, 2018, we travelled to 16 communities, holding 16 hearings. We also met with students at six schools to gather input from Northerners. These communities and schools are listed in an appendix. We received 15 written submissions, and have undertaken our own research, including a review of proposed cannabis legislation and best practices across the country.

In our review, we have assumed that the federal enabling legislation will be passed. Neither the standing committees nor the Government of the Northwest Territories may change or overrule this federal legislation. As Regular Members, our approach to Bill 6 has focused on the need to ensure that, as much as possible, territorial cannabis legislation best reflects the wishes of the people of the Northwest Territories.

Our report is divided into two portions. First, we will discuss what we heard from the public hearing during our tour. Then we will discuss what we did, a combination of motions to amend the bill and policy recommendations to the GNWT. The bill debated in the House after we have formally submitted our report to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly will reflect the changes we have made.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass the reading of this report to the Member from Kam Lake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What We Heard

Economic Growth and Job Creation

Support for Private-sector Cannabis Stores

The GNWT proposed that cannabis be sold only in existing liquor stores for at least two years, with all business conducted through the Northwest Territories Liquor Commission and all expenses and revenues flowing through the Liquor Revolving Fund. The GNWT's initial consultation revealed that "preferences for the retail sales system were mixed, with little over half of survey respondents supporting the liquor commission model and others wanting opportunities for private stores or dispensaries."

However, this is not consistent with public views expressed during our tour. While a few witnesses expressed satisfaction with the Liquor Commission model, the majority of witnesses in small communities, regional centres, and Yellowknife objected to private businesses being excluded from cannabis retailing at the outset. Many residents are interested in the potential economic development and job growth that legalization may bring and are concerned that the GNWT has chosen to monopolize this opportunity. In Lutselk'e, Ms. Florence Catholique told us that: "Lutselk'e women have gotten together to deal with issues in the communities... to enhance the community, work with the youth, and protect rights. Because we knew this [hearing] was coming up, we looked at the business angle. We're looking for money to go to a cannabis workshop in Edmonton to get the details on how to run a [cannabis] business."

The Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce advised that its members "strongly disagree with the proposed retail model." Their "formal position is that, if licenses are going to be issued for cannabis retail, Yellowknife entrepreneurs should have the opportunity to apply for those licenses and demonstrate that they can operate within the chosen regulatory framework." This sentiment was echoed by a representative of the NWT Chamber of Commerce, who said its members want the opportunity to get in on the recreational cannabis business from the start and are prepared to meet regulatory requirements to do so.

It is apparent that, although there are many unknowns in the emerging recreational cannabis market, many Northerners are eager to join their fellow Canadians in learning on the job. Medical cannabis consultant and advocate Ms. Kim MacNearney wrote, "the opportunity for cannabis business development in the NWT is huge and should be embraced by the GNWT, allowing it to grow in an entrepreneurial fashion."

Motion 3 and Recommendation 6 addressed this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn the reading of this report over to the Honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Impacts of the liquor commission model on small communities. Many witnesses raised concerns that neither the potential side effects of the GNWT's proposed liquor commission model nor the unique needs of small communities were appropriately reflected in the bill. Under the proposed model, cannabis would be available in up to seven liquor stores in just six of 33 communities, provided that the owners of these private businesses, who currently sell GNWT-owned alcohol on consignment from the Liquor Commission, agree to sell cannabis. This would leave the majority of NWT communities, including all the small communities, reliant on a mail-order system. As proposed, this system would also operate through the Liquor Commission.

In smaller communities, residents travelling to larger centres to shop will often shop on behalf of neighbours and friends, as well. In Fort Liard, we heard that if residents' only alternative was mail-order, the proximity of Fort Nelson, BC, would ensure that most residents would travel there by car to purchase cannabis and that possession limits would likely not inhibit them from buying for as many legal purchasers as possible. Many residents expressed the view that the mail-order system is too restrictive, which could also encourage cannabis bootlegging. We heard repeatedly that in order to minimize bootlegging and encourage people to buy legal cannabis, cannabis should be cheap and plentiful. Mr. Jason Perrino wrote, "I want to see the illegal market cease to exist. New legislation and regulations can't be so restrictive that [people] continue to buy from dealers."

Residents also identified the challenges posed by limited job opportunities in smaller communities, coupled with expensive necessities (food, fuel, et cetera). Other witnesses noted that many residents have a strong desire to work and would welcome the jobs that could be created by cannabis sales in smaller communities. This absence of legitimate jobs is also seen as a factor contributing to bootlegging alcohol and dealing in illicit drugs. During a hearing at the Hay River Reserve, Mr. Jeffery Fabian said, "Bootleggers are feeding their own families with bootlegging. Food is expensive."

Again, Motion 3 and Recommendation 6 addressed this matter.

Record Suspension

We heard that criminal records related to cannabis are a barrier to employment, education, and travel opportunities. Mr. Amos Cardinal of the Hay River Reserve observed that living with a criminal record is like "dragging a big pile of garbage behind you." This burden is compounded by the expense associated with obtaining a record suspension; the Parole Board of Canada charges $631 to process an application, and we heard that this cost is often an insurmountable obstacle for those who would otherwise be eligible. Several witnesses asked if record suspension for cannabis-related offences, administered through the Government of Canada, would be more readily available after legalization.

Recommendation 5 addresses this matter.

Revenues and Taxation

According to the Government of Canada, the "provinces and territories will work with municipalities towards legalization." However, during the consultation, we heard from the Northwest Territories Association of Communities. The association wrote that they:

"Have requested a municipal share of the revenue and have received an irrevocable no. While we respect that the revenues will be low for our territory and that communities are not responsible for policing in our jurisdiction, communities are currently underfunded to the tune of 37 per cent. They should not be expected to absorb these additional costs. The federal government increased the provincial/territorial share from 50 to 75 per cent so that it could be passed on to communities. Some jurisdictions in Canada have already announced they will be passing on 40 per cent of revenues to communities as well as providing training to all appropriate staff."

We heard concerns that, if government raises the price of cannabis too high, people will continue to buy it from the illicit dealers they already do business with. We also heard support for tax rates for cannabis products based on the concentration of THC, with high-concentration products subject to a higher tax rate. Several submissions suggested that cannabis revenues be targeted to public awareness and education campaigns. It was also suggested that pricing should be used to control youth access by making cannabis an expensive luxury.

Further, in nearly every community we visited, we heard recommendations to dedicate cannabis revenue to related public education and public health initiatives.

Recommendation 7 addresses this matter.

Public Education

Public education was discussed in every community we visited. Witnesses were interested in learning more about the bill itself, relevant health information, and federal rules for commercial cannabis production. We heard questions on cannabis "pros and cons," second-hand smoke, different types of cannabis products, the suppliers the GNWT intends to engage, options for plebiscites, school curricula, impacts on youth brain development and general human health, and more. We also heard recommendations for cannabis-specific training for community health nurses and youth workers, door-to-door information campaigns, and information delivery in Indigenous languages. Ms. Pauline Roche said, "Marijuana is here already. The GNWT has to put resources in schools and teach our kids." Mr. Jeff Norn recommended "tailored education [initiatives]" designed for a broad demographic: not only youth, but also elders, parents, law enforcement, et cetera.

These questions and comments tell us that Northerners are keen to understand cannabis legalization and its likely impacts on their communities. They also tell us that the GNWT has not clearly communicated its intentions for cannabis regulation. In Fort McPherson, Mr. Taig Connell asked, "How will legalization benefit the NWT? Will it create jobs, promote healthy programs? Who wins?" Effective public education is necessary to mitigate the risks posed by incorrect information, fears, or misconceptions about cannabis.

Recommendations 1 and 2 address this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the reading of this report over to the Member for Hay River North.

Masi. Member for Hay River North.

Public Health and Safety

Addictions treatment. Witnesses spoke of their desire for local clinical and on-the-land options for addictions treatment and aftercare, including programs for those living in small communities. Mr. Tim Harris also spoke of the value of the Substance Abuse Management program designed for use in our criminal justice system. Many witnesses were concerned that the GNWT will implement cannabis legalization without parallel plans to strengthen treatment options. Witnesses also spoke of the impact of isolation and shame on addictions and on the decision to pursue treatment, suggesting that public perception of cannabis and cannabis use will continue to evolve after legalization.

The Standing Committee on Social Development recently completed an in-depth examination of addiction treatment options described in Committee Report 4-18(3), Report on Adult Residential Addictions Treatment Facilities Tour 2017. In this report, the committee recommended that the Department of Health and Social Services enhance public communications on addictions treatment, enhance community-based aftercare services, and develop a pilot program to ensure that Northerners completing residential treatment placements are not discharged into homelessness. We await the GNWT's formal response to these recommendations.

Alcohol and Drugs in our Communities

Many witnesses spoke of alcohol's devastating impacts on our communities and on our Indigenous peoples, often comparing cannabis to alcohol. Some were concerned that cannabis would have severe and negative effects, as alcohol has. At the Hay River Reserve, Elder Pat Martel spoke through a translator:

"Sometimes, we talk about things or experiences of how it used to be, years ago, things that we know. Anybody talk about when you're drinking alcohol, I've been there. Today, sometimes people say, 'What do you know about what drugs can do to people?' I've seen what drugs can do to people... [I want to] have somebody come to us here and tell us how it's going to work, how you can buy, sell, grow. I need to know those things before I can sit here and say, 'It's okay' [or] tell my granddaughters they can smoke all they want. I'm not here for that; I'm here to protect them, not only from marijuana, but from drinking. I need you to think about those things and tell the government we asked for help."

Other witnesses asserted an opposing perspective. Also at the Hay River Reserve, Mr. Jeff Norn told us, "I have never seen anyone overdose on pot, [but] I have seen people in hospital, lives, families, communities destroyed with alcohol."

We have considered the views submitted to us and our own research. Although we recognize that cannabis and alcohol are distinct substances with different physiological and social impacts, we also recognize Northerners' concerns. We know that cannabis use is not without risk, particularly for youth and in use of high-potency products such as distilled cannabis resin (also called "shatter"), currently available illegally. In a written submission, the Registered Nurses of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut ("the nurses' association") recommended that "it would be proactive to get ahead of the curve" in preparing for the regulation of high-potency products, including edibles. Similarly, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Public Health Association ("the public health association") recommended that high-potency products be subject to higher taxation.

Although cannabis and alcohol are not the same, Northerners spoke strongly in our public hearings of alcohol's toll on their communities and their strong desire to protect their families. Widespread cannabis use by minors and children as young as 12 years old was a grave concern expressed in many communities. Witnesses' proposals for improved public education and engagement, as well as community-led harm-reduction initiatives, further speak to their focus on public health and safety.

Recommendations 1 and 2 address these matters.

Co-location of Cannabis and Alcohol

We must also address the co-location of cannabis and alcohol sales, as proposed in the GNWT's retail model. Witnesses repeatedly echoed the federal Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation ("the task force"), which recommended "no co-location of alcohol or tobacco and cannabis sales, wherever possible, [and that] when co-location cannot be avoided, appropriate safeguards must be put in place."

Our research shows that in developing its retail model, the GNWT has broken with national trends: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador will not allow cannabis to be sold alongside alcohol. Further, in its written submission, the Canadian Cancer Society recommended against co-location to discourage "poly-substance use," or the co-occurring use of cannabis, alcohol, and/or tobacco. This is consistent with what we heard in our public hearings, where witnesses were concerned about the creation of "one-stop shops" for bootleggers and the temptation to purchase alcohol in addition to cannabis. In Lutselk'e, Ms. Florence Catholique said, "I do totally disagree with having the cannabis sold to us at the liquor store. I don't see the prohibition act as a remedy, but allowing them to go to the liquor store to buy the cannabis... It's also very tempting to buy a bottle." As discussed, many witnesses also opposed the GNWT's proposed liquor store retail model for economic reasons.

Motion 4 addressed this matter.

Enforcement Capacity and Community Resources

Bill 6 proposed two streams for territorial enforcement of cannabis laws: Enforcement of laws on possession, production, and sale under the Cannabis Products Act; and enforcement of laws on public smoking under the Cannabis Smoking Control Act. This is in addition to RCMP enforcement of federal laws. However, many witnesses told us that enforcement responsibilities had not been clearly defined.

Limited enforcement resources were also a prominent concern in public hearings, both with respect to new cannabis-specific laws and more generally. Residents were skeptical of the GNWT's ability to enforce new laws in addition to the already challenging workloads. Community leaders from north to south stressed that they lack resources to enforce provisions of the cannabis legislation or bylaws that might flow from it in the future. We also heard recommendations for additional highway patrols, new RCMP positions, and new RCMP detachments. In Tsiigehtchic, Ms. Grace Blake summarized the issue: "We can have all the laws you want, but the problem is enforcing them."

Again, witnesses identified bootlegging as a major debilitating problem. Both bootlegging and the so-called online "grey market" are enforcement challenges impacting and impacted by the territory's cannabis retail model. We heard concerns that current drug dealers and/or alcohol bootleggers will incorporate cannabis bootlegging into their repertoire; that current cannabis dealers will transition to dealing harder drugs; and that the proposed retail model, coupled with limited enforcement resources, risks creating new bootleggers altogether.

In Fort Providence, Mr. Jim Thom warned that the GNWT risked substantial lost revenue if online grey market sales were not addressed, and, in Tuktoyaktuk, Ms. Marie Pokiak said, "I'm really tired of bootleggers making a living off it... We need an outlet for the sale of cannabis. Otherwise, we are creating more opportunity for illegal trade." These concerns were echoed in many other communities, often coupled with concerns about illegal sales to underage young people. Former Premier Nellie Cournoyea described illicit drug-dealing as a hidden, "ghostly" crime that causes great harm, even death, but most of the time, "no one will go to jail, no one will go to court." Recommendation 4 addresses these concerns.

I would now like to hand the report over to the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Masi. Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh.

Marsi cho, Mr. Speaker.

Impaired Driving and Road Safety

Bill 6 proposed a framework to govern driver's licence suspensions for drug-impaired driving, including zero-tolerance rules for young, novice, and commercial drivers. These zero-tolerance rules mean that drivers aged 21 or younger, and new and commercial drivers of any age, will lose their driver's licence for 30 days if caught driving after using cannabis or any other drug. Mr. Sam Gargan of Fort Providence questioned the impact of these new rules on drivers' civil liberties.

Many witnesses also asked how police will determine whether a driver has used a drug or if a driver is subsequently impaired. In the Northwest Territories, the RCMP enforces impaired-driving laws. We understand that the RCMP intends to use a combination of practical technologies (e.g. mouth swabs) and subjective analysis (e.g. driver inspection by an officer trained as a drug recognition expert). However, drawing on our own research and the concerns brought to us during our tour, we have serious reservations about these methodologies.

Additionally, we heard concerns regarding cannabis-smoking in cars where children were present. This is prohibited under the proposed legislation, a decision we support, particularly given that cannabis is an intoxicant affecting driving ability.

We also note that, because on-road use of all-terrain vehicles such as quads is regulated under the All-terrain Vehicles Act, not the Motor Vehicles Act, neither current territorial impaired-driving legislation nor the amendments proposed in Bill 6 will apply to those vehicles.

Medical Cannabis

Many witnesses were concerned that Bill 6 would impact the prescription and use of medical cannabis. However, medical cannabis is regulated under separate federal legislation. The legal requirements governing the prescription and use have not changed, and will not be affected by this bill.

Possession Limits

Bill 6 proposed possession limits consistent with pending federal legislation: 30 grams per person and four plants per household. Many witnesses were interested in the rationale for these limits and identified concerns respecting cannabis consumption and growth in homes where minors reside.

As we have mentioned, many also questioned the impact of possession limits on small-community residents shopping for friends and neighbours in regional centres. Witnesses also noted their concerns that a 30-gram limit would encourage bootlegging, particularly if cannabis sales were restricted to existing liquor stores. Others suggested a two-tier possession limit with a lower possession limit (or cannabis potency limit) for those aged 19 to 25, reflecting the increased risks to younger consumers suggested by recent research. We also heard questions about whether possession limits would apply in private residences.

Motions 7 and 8 addressed this matter.

Regulating Cannabis Use in Public Places

Witnesses were often uncertain about where Northerners will be permitted to smoke cannabis under the proposed legislation. We understand that the GNWT intends to clarify this matter through regulations, but we also feel strongly that the rules must be clearly communicated to residents. For example, witnesses asked about cannabis smoking at home, around minors, on sidewalks, in parks (municipal and territorial), in yards or on balconies, and in licensed establishments. It is evident that the GNWT has not clearly communicated one of the cornerstones of its cannabis framework.

Overall, we heard recommendations to restrict cannabis consumption in community spaces and around minors, but we were also reminded that we must ensure access to reasonable options for legal consumption. As legislators, we recognize each individual's right to safely access public spaces in accordance with the law and must balance this with our obligation not to frustrate cannabis legalization by making it practically impossible to use cannabis. We encourage the GNWT to monitor these issues as they evolve across the country, with a view to future improvements of territorial cannabis laws.

Motion 19 addressed this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn the reading of this report over to the honourable Member from Deh Cho. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.